Great River Lease with Des

Not much being said about this lease that Des has put togother?  Does not look very owner friendly?  Money and Royality good but looks like they capture everything ever found under your property.  Not limited to Utica and Marcellus.  It also looks like they can pretty much do anything  deemed necessary on your property.

Views: 8217

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Anastasia on August 9, 2013 at 3:18am

"I don't believe I called anyone names"?  This time, you mean.  Just as a refresher, here is your post to all of Monroe County, entitled "All you crankpot, whack job, looney bin morons listen up!!!":

All you crankpot, whack job, looney bin morons listen up!!!

If you have a better idea, I am all listening. Your criticism is unfounded, unfair, and just plain wacky. Some of you need to take your medication or get some. When I came to Monroe county, I came and gave you all the information that I had about the shale play. I have raised the bar on educating the landowner about the pitfalls of leasing. I have been told by dozens of people that my meetings are the most informative out there and most of you if not all owe what you ahve learned about oil the Utica shale to me.

So what have I done to you to deserve these ridiculous attacks. Did I run over soemones dog. People say I dont return phone calls. Im am on the phone all hours of the day and night. I have spent my hard earned money and the money of my investors to help you, yes you get a good deal.

If you know so much, hold your own meeting. I would love to see you try. Some groups have formed here and there, but they havent been paid either. The river group, not paid, Roland Lazarro and Midstream hasnt paid a soul yet, Lensman, ILG, and so on we go.

You dont like me, why no one of know anything about me. I have been completely and I mean completely truthful at every meeting. You have no idea how hard it has been to deal with the oil companies on your behalf and just attack, attack attack. Get a life people.

You are not interested in the truth. You just want to be critical. Someone wants me to bring proof ofth LOI's that I have received and the deals not working out. There is no way, those documents could ever be made public, the are confidentail in nature and I could have legal trouble and consequences.

Again, our title program is a unique approach that is the first time that has been tried with landowners. So it is a work in progress. To just attack something that you dont understand is lunacy. Some on here have siad that title can be done for same the cost as mortgage title. This is completely and utterlly untrue. But people just want to run their mouth.

No two titles are the same. Period. There is simpy no way to put a value on pulling one title versus another. To say that the cost for one acre versus one thousand should be the same, is just not reasonable. If title is so easy, then why are the courthouses packed to the gills with people working for hours researching.

Folks, the truth is, people have gotten a little education and now they think they are experts. Even Finnbear with his YEARS or experience, which after reading his posts, I find hard to believe because he is so wrong about a lot of things. There is so much about this business that ou people simply do not know or understand.

The goal folks is to help you get a fair and reasonable deal. That has always been the goal. In life, you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. I challenge any of you, anytime anywhere, come to my meetings. Ask the hard questons. I have never duycked a question. I may have given an answer that you didnt like, but never the less, I have given the truth. So bring it on!!! Dont hide on the internet. Come to a meeting, show what you got. Bring facts, not fiction. Show us the proof youa re all talking about on here.A nd let the folks out there see what the truth really is. Im calling you out. Show me who has the balls to asnwer my challenge,

Otherwise, shut your lousy worhtless crazy mouth and stop telling stuff that isnt true!!!!

 

 

I believe if you look in the dictionary under "burned bridges", you will find a picture of Des...

 

Permalink Reply by The Hiker on August 7, 2013 at 2:39pm

9000' lateral + 500' on one end + 500' on the other = 10000' overall unit length

550' on either side of the lateral = 1100' overall unit width

10000' x 1100' = 11000000 sq ft in unit

11000000  sq ft/ 43560 sq ft per acre = 252.5 acres

Can't argue with the math. 

Permalink Reply by Ripley's Believe it or Not on August 7, 2013 at 4:33pm

Hot Dogs ,get your Hot Dogs!!

Permalink Reply by Des Wertheimer on August 7, 2013 at 5:56pm
Come on fellas. The lease was negotiated reasonably and fairly. If your numbers are right, then the 5000 ft lateral would barely need 100 acres. So to be accurate, your not including the lineal foot of the bell curve needed to reach the lateral part of the drill string so it isn't exact. Plus, the unit would be 3 wells and in some cases 6 wells. The bottom line is we built a clause that only allows bigger units based on lateral lengths, where most leases allow units to go to 1000 or 1280 without any prerequisites. So that was the intent
Permalink Reply by The Hiker on August 8, 2013 at 1:25am

My numbers are right.   Many units are laid out with the drill pad and the "bell curve" not included in the unit.  Your quibbling.  Even if you add a few acres for the "curve", you will have a hard time reaching 1650 acres with one 9000' lateral, or maybe the lease specifies 3 wells minimum on that 1650 acres?  I doubt it.  I'll bet the lease says one well.  Admit it:  The clause is designed to hold acreage.

Let's do the math again using your numbers:  

5000' lateral + 1000' for the ends = 6000' unit length

1100' unit width for one well

6000' x 1100' = 6,600,000 sq ft in the unit

6,600,00 square ft divided by 43,560 sq ft per acre = 151.5 acres (not barely 100)

You can't argue with the math Des.  I mean, if you can't even do a simple area calculation that forms the basis for one of your clauses, then.......(I'll let the GMS readers fill in the rest).

Gimme two with mustard and relish......

 

Permalink Reply by Jeffery McLaughlin on August 8, 2013 at 6:26am

Donna kinda impressive I never knew you had this in you.

Yea I back had computer problems. But like I said very good.

Permalink Reply by Jeffery McLaughlin on August 8, 2013 at 12:01pm

You're welcome! And like I said before I will give credit where it is due! and you have earned it.

Permalink Reply by landlubber on August 8, 2013 at 8:24am

Thanks for this excellent work!

Permalink Reply by Renee E. Dorsey on August 8, 2013 at 8:57am

Yep - thanks for saving me from making a baaaad decision.   :)

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on August 8, 2013 at 11:03am

 I think if I were about to meet Des, I would start running in the opposite direction. No real reasons to say that, except reading the thread gives me a very queasy feeling! Donna, you have done a lot of good work and your comments are excellent. Unfortunately only a few people read the website, therefore I will not be surprised if Des signs up 15,000 acres.

Permalink Reply by MJ on August 8, 2013 at 3:20pm

Hats off and all due respect ma'am.  Very well done!  Everyone on this site could and should learn from your knowledge and expertise!  Thanks Donna!

Permalink Reply by The Hiker on August 8, 2013 at 1:57pm

Donna:   Fantastic analysis of an obviously bad lease, and congratulations on a job very well done.   After reading your comments and Des' posts, it seems obvious that Des and the Great River have crafted a lease custom made to "flip".    I mean, what oil company would object to this language?  lol.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service